1) The petitioner filed a petition to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered under sections 384 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Karja Act.
2) Both parties had settled the dispute and filed a joint compromise application before the trial court. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 384 IPC but acquitted him of other charges.
3) The petitioner appealed the conviction in the sessions court. Considering the compromise between the parties and that the offences were personal in nature, the high court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the FIR, trial court judgment, and sessions court appeal.
1) The petitioner filed a petition to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered under sections 384 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Karja Act.
2) Both parties had settled the dispute and filed a joint compromise application before the trial court. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 384 IPC but acquitted him of other charges.
3) The petitioner appealed the conviction in the sessions court. Considering the compromise between the parties and that the offences were personal in nature, the high court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the FIR, trial court judgment, and sessions court appeal.
1) The petitioner filed a petition to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered under sections 384 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Karja Act.
2) Both parties had settled the dispute and filed a joint compromise application before the trial court. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 384 IPC but acquitted him of other charges.
3) The petitioner appealed the conviction in the sessions court. Considering the compromise between the parties and that the offences were personal in nature, the high court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the FIR, trial court judgment, and sessions court appeal.
CRMP No. 56 of 2022 Decided On: 18.01.2022 Appellants: Vikas Kumar Agrawal Vs. Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Rajani Dubey, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/Defendant: Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L. and Subha Shrivastava, Advocate Case Category: CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS FOR/AGAINST QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ORDER Rajani Dubey, J. Proceeding through video conferencing. Heard. Admit. 1 . The present petition has been fled for quashing of the criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No. 32/2016, registered at police station Pendra, District Bilaspur (now District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi) C.G., for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act and also praying for quashment of entire charge sheet, judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 270/2016 and also the proceeding of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2021. 2. It is contended that both the parties have settled the dispute and the statements of the parties have been recorded and they have contended that they do not want to further continue with the criminal case as they have entered into the compromise, therefore, the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed. The parties have fled a joint compromise application (Annexure-P/3) before the trial Court under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in which the statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded. 3 . As per the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2, he has taken loan from the petitioner and in lieu of which he has given a cheque to the petitioner, which was returned by the concerned bank and hence the petitioner has preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent No. 2 before the competent Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has lodged false and baseless FIR No. 32/2016 at P.S. Pendra against the petitioner under Section 384 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act, in which after completion of investigation, the police has fled the
13-03-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa
charge-sheet and learned trial Court has framed the charges under the same Sections and the case was fixed for prosecution witnesses, during the trial the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses before the trial Court. During the trial, as the proceeding of Section 138 of NI Act was also pending against the respondent No. 2, both the parties mutually agreed to settle the entire dispute and hence jointly preferred compromise application before the trial Court under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in which the statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded. Certified copy of compromise application and compromise statements are collectively fled as Annexure-P/3. On the basis of above mentioned compromise, the learned trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act but convicted him under Section 384 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-P/4). Thereafter, against the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14/2021 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/5 and P/6). On the other hand, the trial Court had convicted the respondent No. 2 on the complaint of petitioner fled under Section 138 of NI Act (Annexure-P/7). After that respondent No. 2 has preferred an appeal, in which both the parties mutually settled their dispute and Lok-Adalat has passed the award on 14.09.2019 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties (Annexure-P/8). Now the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute and hence prays for quashment of entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 4 . Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012) Vol. 10 SCC 303, has stated that the position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime in question and has laid down the above principles and held that: "In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 5. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. 6. Thus, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accuse had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and in view of
13-03-2022 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa